From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Barry Lind <barry(at)xythos(dot)com> |
Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Karel Zak <zakkr(at)zf(dot)jcu(dot)cz>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Neil Conway <nconway(at)klamath(dot)dyndns(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: 7.3 schedule |
Date: | 2002-04-12 16:49:37 |
Message-ID: | 200204121649.g3CGnbw12950@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Barry Lind wrote:
> Oracle's implementation is a shared cache for all plans. This was
> introduced in Oracle 6 or 7 (I don't remember which anymore). The net
> effect was that in general there was a significant performance
> improvement with the shared cache. However poorly written apps can now
> bring the Oracle database to its knees because of the locking issues
> associated with the shared cache. For example if the most frequently
> run sql statements are coded poorly (i.e. they don't use bind variables,
> eg. 'select bar from foo where foobar = $1' vs. 'select bar from foo
> where foobar = || somevalue' (where somevalue is likely to be
> different on every call)) the shared cache doesn't help and its overhead
> becomes significant.
This is very interesting. We have always been concerned that shared
cache invalidation could cause more of a performance problem that the
shared cache gives benefit, and it sounds like you are saying exactly
that.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-04-12 16:51:26 | Re: 7.3 schedule |
Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2002-04-12 16:47:25 | Re: numeric/decimal docs bug? |